American drivers warned about red flags to avoid ‘predatory towing' targeting motorists across US
Chris Stroisch, the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) vice president of public affairs & communications, shared with Fox News Digital that they are seeing a "significant spike in predatory tolling in the United States, which has increased 89% in the last three years."
"We're seeing predatory towing occurring in cities both large and small. So you're seeing predatory towing occurring in large cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. But you're also seeing it in small communities like Des Moines, Iowa," Stroisch said.
Stroisch explained that these predatory towers are "following the money" and will operate wherever they can make the most profit.
"Unfortunately, what we're seeing on our end is that we're hearing a lot of sad stories," Stroisch said. "Predatory towers that are engaging in reckless driving, they're engaging in turf wars even, and there's even been shootings tied to predatory towing that's all leading to very tragic, but avoidable deaths. So it's really just this growing problem that we've seen take off in the last three years in this country."
The California Department of Insurance echoed the NICB warning and added that it has seen an uptick happening where some tow truck companies are targeting drivers involved in crashes by picking up their cars and then holding them hostage for large amounts of money.
"This type of scam is preying on drivers at their most vulnerable moments—immediately after an accident—when they should be focused on their safety and next steps, not fighting to get their vehicle back," Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement. "Our department is committed to protecting Californians from fraud, and this PSA is an important step in ensuring drivers know the warning signs and how to protect themselves."
A spokesperson for the agency told Fox News Digital that, right now, they are seeing two primary scams. One involves a tow truck driver showing up immediately after a collision occurs and offering to help the other driver by towing their vehicle to a body shop.
"Tow drivers show up to accident scenes and misrepresent to the crash victim that they were sent there by the insurance company, when they were in fact not," the agency said. "The suspects steal/tow the victim's vehicle under false pretenses to a body shop or tow yard. They then charge exorbitant fees to the victim or insurance company to release the vehicle."
The second scam the agency said they are seeing is when a tow driver steals personal information from the victim by posing as law enforcement or an insurance company employee.
"Suspects contact the crash victim claiming to be an employee of the victim's insurance carrier, indicating they will tow the vehicle to a body shop approved by their insurance company and then steal/tow the vehicle under false pretenses," the California Department of Insurance spokesperson said.
Stroisch added that there are two rules of thumb that they tell consumers.
"First thing, if you didn't request it, reject it," Stroisch said. "If you're in an accident and a tow truck company shows up on scene that's unsolicited, we tell people to wait for law enforcement to arrive. And then once that tow truck company is on scene, to know as much as you can or know before you tow."
The California Department of Insurance shared a few red flags drivers should be aware of to make sure they are not a victim of this type of scam, which include:
In response to the growing scam trend, the agency said that it has created three law enforcement task forces in Southern California that investigate organized automobile insurance fraud.
The task forces are comprised of CDI detectives, investigators from the California Highway Patrol, and investigators from the local district attorney's offices, the agency explained, adding that it manages these task forces.
"These task forces work up these crimes, present the case to the district attorney's offices for filing criminal charges, and arrest the suspects. Additionally, we work with other state agencies, such as the Bureau of Automotive Repair, to refer cases for administrative sanctions," the agency said.
"We also spend considerable time educating our state and local law enforcement partners to assist us in better recognizing this type of activity, and we have been releasing public service announcements to raise the public's awareness."
According to the department, the Inland Empire Automobile Insurance Fraud Task Force has investigated multiple cases, including one that has resulted in the arraignment and charges against 16 Southern California residents.
"This task force investigation found the auto fraud ring allegedly conspired together to create fraudulent insurance claims to illegally collect over $216,932," the department said in a statement. "The investigation discovered the large-scale organized auto insurance fraud ring was engaged in multiple types of schemes including holding vehicles hostage and collusive collisions."
This same ring, the department shared, was previously charged in a similar scheme stemming from vehicles stolen under false pretenses in San Bernardino County.
Stroisch shared that some of these operators are even charging upwards of 10 times the usual cost of a tow, and then are holding the vehicles hostage in the process.
"The average cost of a tow is $109, but we're seeing costs that have skyrocketed, and we're seeing costs that are 10, 15, 16, and $17,000 that are just filled with absorbent fees and very vague descriptions of what people are actually paying for all while these vehicles are being held hostage," Stroisch explained.
"If you're in an accident, get as much information as you can about a tow truck company and wait for law enforcement to arrive first."
While tow truck scams are nothing new, the California Department of Insurance said they are on the rise, increasing by over 1,500 reports since 2023.
"We do not have stats specific to this type of scam, but in 2024, CDI received 13,870 referrals of suspected automobile insurance fraud from insurance companies, government agencies and the public, which increased from 2023, where we received 12,363," the department shared.
The department said it is urging any drivers that believe they may be in a situation like this to verify the tow truck with their insurance company or wait for CHP to verify the tow truck was dispatched by CHP, adding to also not sign any documents until you have talked to their insurance company.
Stroisch said one of the biggest things that the bureau is seeing right now is the lack of laws and the lack of policies in some cities and states.
"Every state, every municipality is different, and some states have laws against predatory towing. They have laws that require licensing of tow truck companies. They have laws that require transparency around fee schedules, but there are many cities and states that don't," Stroisch explained. "So I think that from an NICB standpoint, we would recommend all lawmakers at every level, work together to put measures in place to help prevent this."
Stroisch suggested that banning accident scene solicitations is one example of how predatory towing can be thwarted.
"That's where a lot of this is occurring. These tow truck companies that just show up on scene, so ban accident scene solicitation in the first place. So we are really encouraging lawmakers to work together to pass legislation.
"We are currently monitoring 107 different bills in 37 states that are all tied to predatory towing. So to have that many bills that are in some stage, it's just showing the problem that we're seeing right now."
Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to stepheny.price@fox.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
US appeals court makes decision on landmark California ammunition background checks case
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In a 2-1 vote, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains' people's right to keep and bear arms. Advertisement The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif. declared a law that requires gun owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition in California unconstitutional. Getty Images She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark US Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' Ikuta wrote. Advertisement The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision. 'Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,' a spokesperson said. The office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has called the January 2024 injunction 'extremist, illogical, and incoherent,' had no immediate comment. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said hte law 'meaningfully constrains' citizens' right to bear arms. REUTERS Advertisement All three judges on Thursday's panel were appointed by Republican presidents, though appointees of Democratic presidents hold a 9th Circuit majority. California can ask an 11-judge appeals court panel or the Supreme Court to review the decision. 'Overreaching The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. In a joint statement, the group's president and general counsel Chuck Michel called the decision a victory against 'overreaching government gun control,' while Rhode called it 'a big win for all gun owners in California.' Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents, while a few gun safety groups sided with California. Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, in a statement said California's law imposed a 'minimal burden'–a $1 fee and one-minute delay–for most firearms owners seeking ammunition. 'Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense,' she said. Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and buy four-year ammunition permits. Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. California said it received 191 reports in 2024 of 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition. Law not 'Heavy-Handed,' dissent says Advertisement The injunction was issued by US District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has ruled in several cases in favor of gun owners. An appeals court panel put the injunction on hold during California's appeal. California said several old firearms restrictions supported the background checks. These included colonial era rules requiring licenses to produce gunpowder, the disarmament around 1776 of people who refused to take 'loyalty oaths,' and late-19th century rules requiring government permission to carry concealed weapons. Advertisement Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented from Thursday's decision. He accused the majority of flouting Supreme Court guidance by effectively declaring unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues. The law 'is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,' Bybee wrote. Advertisement President George W. Bush appointed Ikuta and Bybee to the bench, while President Donald Trump appointed Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined Thursday's majority. The case is Rhode v Bonta et al, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court says California law requiring background checks for ammunition is unconstitutional
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A voter-backed California law requiring background checks for people who buy bullets is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a blow to the state's efforts to combat gun violence. In upholding a 2024 ruling by a lower court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law violates the Second Amendment. Voters passed the law in 2016 and it took effect in 2019. Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California went a step further by requiring a background check, which costs either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time someone buys bullets. Last year, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional because if people can't buy bullets, they can't use their guns for self-defense. The 9th Circuit agreed. Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains" the constitutional right to keep arms by forcing gun owners to get rechecked before each purchase of bullets. 'The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,' the judge wrote. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who supported the background checks, decried the court's decision. 'Strong gun laws save lives — and today's decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence," Newsom said in a statement. "Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.' The California Department of Justice said the state needs 'common-sense, lifesaving' laws that prevent ammunition from falling into the wrong hands. 'We are deeply disappointed in today's ruling — a critical and lifesaving measure that closes a dangerous loophole,' the department said in a statement. 'Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options.' Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the law 'absurdly restrictive.' 'This case has been a long hard fight against overreaching government gun control, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable. The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional,' Michel said. The law remained in effect while the state appealed the lower court's decision. Benitez had criticized the state's automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023. California's law was meant to help police find people who have guns illegally, such as convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses and people with some domestic violence convictions. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble guns in their home. The guns don't have serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to track, but the people who own them show up in background checks when they try to buy bullets. John Parkin, president of Coyote Point Armory in Burlingame, California, said the law made it difficult or impossible for some legal gun owners to purchase ammunition. For example, out-of-state residents and California residents with old guns couldn't buy bullets because they weren't in the database of approved gun owners, he said. 'It was written to make California gun owners angry. There wasn't a lot of logic to it," Parkin said about the law. 'I think there are better ways to keep the public safe.' California has some of the nation's toughest gun laws. Many of them are being challenged in court in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that set a new standard for interpreting gun laws. The decision said gun laws must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Two other California gun laws were struck down in recent years — one that banned detachable magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets and another that banned the sale of assault-style weapons. Those decisions have been appealed. Other laws being challenged include rules requiring gun stores to have digital surveillance systems and restrictions on the sale of new handguns. Solve the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
10 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court says California law requiring background checks for ammunition is unconstitutional
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A voter-backed California law requiring background checks for people who buy bullets is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a blow to the state's efforts to combat gun violence. In upholding a 2024 ruling by a lower court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state law violates the Second Amendment. Voters passed the law in 2016 and it took effect in 2019. Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California went a step further by requiring a background check, which costs either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time someone buys buy bullets. Last year, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional because if people can't buy bullets, they can't use their guns for self-defense. The 9th Circuit agreed. Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the state law 'meaningfully constrains" the constitutional right to keep arms by forcing gun owners to get rechecked before each purchase of bullets. 'The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,' the judge wrote. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who supported the background checks, decried the court's decision. 'Strong gun laws save lives — and today's decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence," Newsom said in a statement. "Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.' The California Department of Justice said California needs 'common-sense, lifesaving' laws that prevent ammunition from falling into the wrong hands. 'We are deeply disappointed in today's ruling — a critical and lifesaving measure that closes a dangerous loophole,' the department said in a statement. 'Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options.' Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the law 'absurdly restrictive.' 'This case has been a long hard fight against overreaching government gun control, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable. The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional.' The law remained in effect while the state appealed the lower court's decision. Benitez had criticized the state's automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023. California's law was meant to help police find people who have guns illegally, such as convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses and people with some domestic violence convictions. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble guns in their home. The guns don't have serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to track, but the people who own them show up in background checks when they try to buy bullets. California has some of the nation's toughest gun laws. Many of them are being challenged in court in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that set a new standard for interpreting gun laws. The decision said gun laws must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Two other California gun laws were struck down in recent years — one that banned detachable magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets and another that banned the sale of assault-style weapons. Those decisions have been appealed. Other laws being challenged include rules requiring gun stores to have digital surveillance systems and restricting the sale of new handguns.
